Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the term “particularly preferably”. It is unclear whether the limitations which follow are positively recited. For purposes of examination, the limitations which follow “particularly preferably” are interpreted to be optional.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“mounting device” (claims 1-13)
“actuating device (claims 1-13)
“energy storage mechanism” (claims 1-13)
“force transmission mechanism” (claims 1-13)
“adjusting device” (claim 10)
“damping device” (claim 11)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (specification page 1, line 10- page 2, line 18), herein referred to as APA, in view of EP 0596810, herein referred to as ‘810, and further in view of Lubetz et al. (US 10,487,554), herein referred to as ‘554.
For Claim 1, APA discloses a furniture fitting (page 1, line 11) for movably mounting at least one first furniture part relative to a second furniture part comprising:
at least one mounting device for releasably fastening the furniture fitting to one of the first and second furniture parts (page 1, lines 12-13);
at least one actuating device, which is configured to be connected to the other of the first and second furniture parts, and which is mounted movably relative to the at least one mounting device (page 1, lines 14-15);
at least one energy storage mechanism, which has at least one spring element made of at least one wire, wherein the at least one spring element is formed as a coil spring (page 1, lines 16-17);
at least one force transmission mechanism, via which energy, which is configured to be deposited in the at least one energy storage mechanism, is configured to be transmitted to the at least one actuating device (page 1, lines 18-19).
APA does not disclose wherein the at least one wire has, in a cross section normal to a longitudinal axis of the at least one wire, an outer contour deviating from a circular shape. APA is instead silent as to the shape of the cross section of the wire of the coil spring.
‘810 teaches a coil spring having at least one wire, wherein the at least one wire has, in a cross section normal to a longitudinal axis of the at least one wire, an outer contour deviating from a circular shape (as seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
APA further does not disclose wherein the at least one force transmission mechanism has at least one lever, and the at least one energy storage mechanism is linked via an application point to the at least one lever. APA is instead silent as to the connection to the force transmission mechanism.
‘554 teaches a furniture fitting wherein at least one force transmission mechanism (16, 17, 21) has at least one lever (17), and at least one energy storage mechanism (8) linked via an application point (20) to the at least one lever (17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the force transmission mechanism of APA with the force transmission mechanism of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 2, ‘810 further teaches wherein the at least one wire has, over a predominant part of its length, an outer contour deviating from a circular shape, in a cross section normal to the longitudinal axis of the at least one wire (as seen in ‘810 Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 3, ‘810 further teaches wherein the outer contour is formed oval (as seen in ‘810 Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 4, ‘810 further teaches wherein the outer contour has, in the cross section normal to the longitudinal axis, a minimal extent in a first direction (left-right direction as seen in Figure 1) and a maximal extent in a second direction (up-down direction as seen in Figure 1) perpendicular to the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 5, ‘810 further teaches wherein the at least one spring element is formed as a compression spring (as seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 6, APA as modified by ‘810 and ‘554 further teaches the furniture fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the at least one spring element is formed from a spring steel. APA, ‘810, and ‘554 are instead silent as to the particular material the at least one spring element is made from. ‘810 teaches that the at least one spring element is metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spring of APA as modified by ‘810 from spring steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide sufficient durability and flexibility.
For Claim 7, APA as modified by ‘810 teaches the furniture fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the at least one actuating device is mounted pivotably relative to the at least one mounting device about a swivel pin. APA is instead silent as to how the actuating device moves with respect to the mounting device. ‘554 teaches a furniture fitting wherein at least one actuating device (14) is mounted pivotably relative to at least one mounting device (7) about a swivel pin (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the actuating device of APA with the actuating device of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for low friction movement between the actuating device and mounting device.
For Claim 8, ‘554 further teaches a furniture fitting wherein at least one force transmission mechanism (16, 17, 21) has at least one pressure piece (16), and at least one control contour (21), on which the at least one pressure piece (16) is configured to be mounted displaceably. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the force transmission mechanism of APA with the force transmission mechanism of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 9, ‘554 further teaches wherein the at least one lever (17) is mounted pivotably on the at least one mounting device (7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the force transmission mechanism of APA with the actuating device of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 10, ‘554 further teaches wherein the furniture fitting has at least one adjusting device (22), with which energy that is capable of being transmitted via the at least one force transmission mechanism to at least one actuating device is adjustable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adjusting device of ‘554 to the furniture fitting of APA. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 11, ‘554 further teaches wherein the furniture fitting has at least one damping device (Column 4, Lines 48-51) for damping the movement of at least one actuating device (10) in a closing and/or opening direction, wherein the at least one damping device interacts with the at least one actuating device (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the damping device of ‘554 to the furniture fitting of APA. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to damp the opening or closing of the furniture device.
For Claim 12, APA is silent as to the at least one mounting device having a mounting plate, for releasable fastening to one of the two furniture parts. ‘554 teaches at least one mounting device (7) has a mounting plate (7), for releasable fastening to one of the two furniture parts (as seen in ‘554 Figure 1b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the mounting plate of ‘554 to the furniture fitting of APA. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for the furniture fitting to be preassembled and mounted as a preassembled unit.
For Claim 13, APA as modified by ‘810 and ‘554 further teaches a piece of furniture with at least one first furniture part, at least one second furniture part and at least one furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the first and second furniture parts are mounted movably relative to one another via the at least one furniture fitting (page 1, lines 10-20).
For Claim 14, ‘554 further teaches wherein the furniture fitting is formed as a flap fitting (Figure 1b) for movably mounting a furniture flap (3) relative to a furniture carcass (2). It would have been obvious to apply a furniture flap and furniture carcass as taught by ‘554 as it is a simple substitution of one known furniture type for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control pressure applied to an energy storage mechanism when moving a furniture flap relative to a furniture carcass.
For Claim 15, ‘810 further teaches wherein the outer contour deviating from a circular shape is constant (as seen in ‘810 Figure 1) over an entire length of the at least one wire. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 16, as best understood, ‘810 further teaches wherein: the at least one spring element has a central axis (as seen in Figure 1 extending in the left-right direction) and the first direction (left-right direction) is oriented parallel to the central axis (as seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil spring of APA with the coil spring of ‘810, as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring.
For Claim 17, ‘554 further teaches wherein the at least one energy storage mechanism (8) has two spring elements (as seen in Figure 2). It would have been obvious to apply two spring elements to the energy storage mechanism as taught by ‘554 as it is a simple substitution of one known energy storage mechanism for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for increased spring force to be applied to the furniture fitting without requiring additional installation depth that would otherwise be necessary for a single longer spring.
For Claim 18, ‘554 further teaches wherein the swivel pin (11) extends horizontally in a usage position (as seen in Figures 1b and 3a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the actuating device of APA with the actuating device of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for low friction movement between the actuating device and mounting device.
For Claim 19, ‘554 further teaches wherein the at least one pressure piece (16) includes a pressure roller (29), and wherein the at least one control contour (21) is formed on the at least one actuating device (14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the force transmission mechanism of APA with the force transmission mechanism of ‘554. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 20, ‘554 further teaches wherein the at least one energy storage mechanism (8) is mounted pivotably on the at least one mounting device (7) and is pivotable (via 20, 16, 17, 21) by the at least one adjusting device (22) relative to the at least one mounting device (7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adjusting device of ‘554 to the furniture fitting of APA. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control the pressure applied to the energy storage mechanism.
For Claim 21, ‘554 further teaches wherein the mounting plate (7) is formed at least partly as a housing part (7) of the furniture fitting (as seen in Figures 1b and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the mounting plate/housing of ‘554 to the furniture fitting of APA. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for the furniture fitting to be preassembled and mounted as a preassembled unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily with respect to newly added limitations which have been addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant argues that ‘810 is not directed to a furniture fitting. Examiner notes that APA discloses a furniture fitting having a spring. ‘810 is relied upon for teaching a known spring and that modifying APA to replace the spring with the spring taught by ‘810 would be obvious as it is a simple substitution of one known coil spring for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce stress deviations on an internal surface of the spring. Applicant’s argument that there would be no motivation to replace the spring of APA with the spring as taught by ‘810 is not convincing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,188,277, US 12,037,825, and US 12,129,700 are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, but have not been relied upon in the current rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677